The crucial aim of the students is to get a good job and a good life, and college is where they get professional knowledge, develop dreams, and complete education. College is also a good motive for students to study, and it helps students focus on studying. If students go to college, their individual potential will be raised higher and the educational quality will get higher. Also, with skills and knowledge learned in college, students will be enabled to get better jobs and better lives. Emphasis on college education will help economy and it will help citizens have higher competence.

Moving on to my first argument, our first argument is about individual potential. There are many levels of schools. In elementary schools, students learn the basics. In middle schools, education is lengthened. In high schools, the education is advanced more. In college, education is completed. College is a good way in pulling up one"s potential in many ways. Students who didn"t study and who were lax in studying try to concentrate because they want to have a good life and college is a good tool in getting a good life. Also, while in college, students who didn"t have interest in studying may start to get interest because they might find something specialized that they really like and develop a dream, or they could try to expand their education and get further knowledge. In college, educational quality is also higher. In college, there are specialized majors and much deeper education is possible. For an example, art learned in high school would comparatively be much shallower than art learned in college. So in college, students can have their individual potentials pulled up, and the educational quality is higher too.

Much of the current dogma in U.S. society in particular is that everyone should go to college. I think that we are all lifelong students, but I don't believe that college is the one path forward that should always be touted.

Why not? Well, first, not everyone is benefited by broadening their horizons. There's no reason to believe that every individual is going to want to be a scientist, a teacher, or a lawyer. Second, not everyone is cut out for college, intellectually or emotionally. Anxiety among students is a huge problem. Not all these students are going to have the grades out of high school to get necessary scholarships for them to go through their college programs without heaps of debt.

What are the alternatives?

For one, there's vocational schools. These are essentially trade schools, meant to teach students job-specific skills. This will often be highly beneficial, as they're usually shorter in duration, produce skilled labor with hands-on experience, and are normally supported by private companies, providing a route into a job shortly after graduation.

There are also apprenticeship programs, which involve working directly for an employer and studying the masters at work. This is an even more directly applicable way to learn and transition.

Much as college provides a great education, it is often distant from real world problems and concerns about getting a job, which are often left solely to the students. Businesses are wary of college graduates, even those with great GPAs, because there is always a gulf between their knowledge and the knowledge and experience the company requires. Both vocational schools and apprenticeships don't suffer from that.

Rebuttal: Of course there are many other roads than college. I acknowledge that. However, my stance is that we don't really regret the emphasis on college education, not that everyone should go to college. Believe it or not, in our country(I'm a South Korean), colleges have become prerequisites for entering into society, and companies and businesses put much importance on what college that person has come from. In the society that we face today, it is inevitable that we put emphasis on college education, and I don't regret it. People from vocational schools are also a bit discriminated, so it would be more efficient for the students to enter into college education.

Moving on to my second argument, our second argument is about economic benefits. If students go to college, there will be much more economic benefits. First, the overall level of education will get higher, as people will get deeper levels of education. This will cause the general mature civic awareness, and people will get much more efficient in whatever they are working on. This will bring more profit. Also, with more specific information, better technology and things such as better inventions will be enabled to be made. Also, there are high possibilities that better firms will be born too. All these will help to make profits in global market and etc. So there will be benefits to the country because people work much more efficiently, better technology and products are made, and better firms are born. The cause of all this can be traced back to college education.

Con is essentially non-responsive to my points. He states that there are other roads one could take, and then disregards the analysis I've provided in support of them. I don't see any response to vocational schools and apprenticeships specifically, so extend my analyses there. Also extend my points regarding why college is not for everyone.

Con then proceeds to outline the very reasons for my concern. The situation is South Korea is, in my opinion, net harmful. College shouldn't be a "prerequisite for entering into society," partly because it completely excludes those who cannot succeed in a college setting. One type of education should not be preferred over another, and Con has provided only limited reasons why college is specifically important, and none for why it is more beneficial than anything I've offered up.

Con then proceeds to explain the benefits of such a system. He says that there would be more economic benefits. His warrants are here lacking. I don't see any actual link made between higher education and increased benefits to individuals or society, mainly just assertions that the link exists.

Let's go through those assertions.

1) Higher education = deeper education

Not necessarily true, but I'll grant this.

2) More civic awareness

No reason for this given - Con assumes what is taught to everyone in college.

3) Higher efficiency

Again, not supported. I'd argue the reverse - the lack of on-the-job experience makes them very inefficient.

4) Increased profit for company

No reason to believe that someone coming from the insular academic environment will lead to increased profits.

5) Better inventions and technology

Perhaps, but neither of these things require a college background to accomplish.

6) Better firms

Not likely, given that college graduates aren't normally that capable of starting their own businesses since they don't have experience in this regard.

Rebuttal)
1. Pro is saying that college shouldn't be a prerequisite. But actually, my point is that the status quo is that college has become a prerequisite. I'm not saying that it should. Because it has become a prerequisite, the students should flexibly focus more on college education, like it or not.

2. About civic awareness- I think I need to explain what I meant by that. When people are educated, they come to reevaluate the injustices and etc. that are revolving around them. When citizens are better educated, they are less gullible, and less injustice would occur.

3. About higher efficiency- Actually, college does sometimes provide these on-the-job experiences when it is thought to be needed. A common example(at least in South Korea-I don't know about other places) is student teachers and trainee teachers.

4. About better technology- I believe that the more deeper and specific education the students get in college(you granted that) will be more help in making better technology and the wider view they get with wider education will make more creative and innovative ideas.

Fundamentally, this debate is about emphasis, and not whether or not college is good. Both Con and I agree that college can be a great learning experience with good possible returns for companies and society. However, my argument from the start of this debate has been that there are alternatives that serve as good if not better purposes, and that emphasis alone won't lead to more successful college graduates.

Pro says he doesn't necessarily support college as a prerequisite. This is really an example of emphasis taken to an extreme, one I have already explained is harmful to society and students.

Pro says that civic awareness is gained through education. I agree. Any education can provide civic awareness. Therefore, this is not unique to college.

Pro says that college can provide on-the-job experiences. I agree, though I would say this is uncommon. Both vocational schools and apprenticeships are guaranteed to include this, and therefore far more efficient.

Pro says that a deeper, more specific education makes technology better. He also says they need a wider education. He can't have it both ways. You either get broader or you get deeper. As I granted depth, I'd say that's likeliest, and it leaves many students with very specific knowledge and little innovative capacity.

So voters should be asking themselves some basic questions:

1) Does the emphasis on college education lead to more college students capable of doing well in that academic setting?

2) Is it better for students to feel that their future is determined solely by whether they go to college, or by whether they receive more extensive educations?

3) Does the emphasis displace other important forms of education that more directly lead to economic benefits for students, companies and society?

4) Does going to college strongly link to the beneficial outcomes Con has stated?

I think I've made it clear what the answers to these questions are. I leave it to the voters to evaluate the debate.

Reasons for voting decision: I believe that con needs to do a little better job of defining what the debate is actually about. Con never made it clear what exactly him or pro was supposed to be arguing for. I'm only awarding a conduct point here and for those reasons.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.